H. Dhinkwatrr 231 



No. 34. Designs :uiil makes .-irt iircdlcwcu-k. 

 No. ;5(). Designs and makes art neeillewnrk. 



Generation IV. 



Nos. I and 2. I'aint. 

 No. 10. Dniws portraits. 



The I'oINiwing members oi' tlie family are " exceptionally gifted " as 

 artists : 



II. Nos. 1 and 18. 



III. Nos. 23, 30, and 32. 



IV. No. 10. 



Most of those in Generation IV are still young, and their talent is 

 not fully developed. 



No. 12 in Generation II seems to have been a strange individual. 

 He always declined to speak about his relatives, or to say who thej- 

 were. He would give no particulars of his (•ai'ly life. He predicted 

 that he would die on a certain day: a week before its ai'rival he took 

 to his bed, and died on the specified day. 



Is the inheritance in this fiimily such as one expects from a 

 Mendelian point of view ? 



Marked general ability has been stated to be inherited as a Mendelian 

 recessive. 



If artistic ability is recessive, what are the expectations from various 

 niatings ? 



They are as follows : — 



(1) Two non-artistic parents, if pure dominants, should have non- 

 artistic children only. 



In Generation II, no. 4 and his wife have no artistic ability, and 

 have five children, all of whom resemble the parents. 



The same result is seen in the children of the twin sister of no. 8. 



In Generation III the only child of no. 15 is not artistic. 



These results arc perfectly in accord with the theory that artistic 

 ability is a recessive. 



(2) Where an artistic iiidividu^d man'ies one who is not artistic 

 but has artistic relatives (and if heterozygous in this respect), the 

 expectation is for the children to be of both types in approximately 

 equal numbers. 



